Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare three-dimensional (3D) conformal radiotherapy and the two different forms of IMRT in lung cancer radiotherapy. METHODS: Cases of four lung cancer patients were investigated by developing a 3D conformal treatment plan, a linac MLC-based step-and-shoot IMRT plan and an HT plan for each case. With the use of the complication-free tumour control probability (P(+)) index and the uniform dose concept as the common prescription point of the plans, the different treatment plans were compared based on radiobiological measures. RESULTS: The applied plan evaluation method shows the MLC-based IMRT and the HT treatment plans are almost equivalent over the clinically useful dose prescription range; however, the 3D conformal plan inferior. At the optimal dose levels, the 3D conformal treatment plans give an average P(+) of 48.1% for a effective uniform dose to the internal target volume (ITV) of 62.4 Gy, whereas the corresponding MLC-based IMRT treatment plans are more effective by an average ΔP(+) of 27.0% for a Δ effective uniform dose of 16.3 Gy. Similarly, the HT treatment plans are more effective than the 3D-conformal plans by an average ΔP(+) of 23.8% for a Δ effective uniform dose of 11.6 Gy. CONCLUSION: A radiobiological treatment plan evaluation can provide a closer association of the delivered treatment with the clinical outcome by taking into account the dose-response relations of the irradiated tumours and normal tissues. The use of P - effective uniform dose diagrams can complement the traditional tools of evaluation to compare and effectively evaluate different treatment plans.